(1) What should they do with the unprofitable subsidiaries?
Thyselius said, “If you make losses it means that operations are not working and that you allow negligence and stupidities” (342). The managers’ behavior is a problem that they need to solve first. They require the managers to display the “personal drive” and believe that the HR is the main factor that cause success. They want to hire the best employees for their company because “to produce quality you have to hire qualified persons” (343). So, the top management, which controls everything in the subsidiaries, is the most important thing. They can invest in “employee competence development.” After that, they can talk to the managers to find out why the managers broke the policy and fix the problem. Moreover, through the conversation, they can understand and find out if the manager is good enough to stay in the position. After considering and practicing all of those, if the subsidiaries still have poor development, they should get rid of it because they think that “it is a little too small to spend so much time and energy on it” (349).

(2) How should they deal with the ambitious, unorthodox, yet highly successful manager?
The ambitious and highly successful manager is hard to find another one to replace, even if he/she is unorthodox. I think there is no right or wrong definition for management. It is about the directions and decisions, which fit the company the most.
“Having grown in different directions, S&T firms had little internal coordination among businesses and very limited managerial resources at the corporate level” (349). This makes its subsidiaries are under different managers and different style of managements.
If the manager has the right decisions which allow the company the have high revenue, it is acceptable to keep the manager. They should consider whether the manager is valuable